5 Things VMware Should Do In 2013

VMware's vision of the software-defined data center is still a long ways off and hard to achieve, but these steps will take it closer to its goals.

In 2012, VMware accomplished a lot by sketching out a vision of the software-defined data center as the direction it's headed. It sees virtualization not as the one-time technology transition early implementers expected, rather as an ongoing process of applying more automation to all forms of data center operations.

Despite the heavy R&D such a vision demands, VMware is on a path to grow revenue at a rate of nearly $1 billion a year. At the end of 2011, it had revenue of $3.77 billion, and it was on course to achieve $4.5-$4.6 billion in 2012. Its rate of growth -- 20% -- was slowing, but still healthy in the third quarter of 2012. If that growth can be sustained, VMware is well down the path toward becoming one of the giants of the technology industry.

But as the scope of its ambitions have increased, so have its risks and commitments. For example, revenues were up in the third quarter, but net income was down -- $157 million versus $178 million the year before. Its annual report warned, "Our current R&D efforts may not produce significant revenues for several years, if at all." Every company has to include this standard boilerplate in recognition of the financial risks it faces. In VMware's case, the risk remains starkly real.

In the coming year, the reach of VMware's goals will require it to juggle some possibly conflicting options and act on key issues to maintain its momentum. Here are five suggestions for how VMware should proceed.

We need more benchmark information on ESX Server hypervisor performance, even though "performance" isn't the only consideration in installing virtualization. The general virtual machine (VM) management environment is certainly as important as baseline performance. Still, efficient execution of tasks is a leading attribute of software, with varying capability often hidden in a set of similar but competing products. If Microsoft, Citrix or Red Hat can claim a performance advantage over ESX Server, it will speed up the painfully slow inroads they've made in VMware's customer base. I suspect the leading hypervisors aren't that far apart when it comes to performance. Some testing indicates that, while other testing shows performance gaps.

More information is needed because there's not a lot of it available yet. When it comes to something as fundamental to virtualized data centers, private cloud operations and public clouds, you would think hypervisors would be so extensively tested that there's little left to learn. In fact not much is publicly known about how well hypervisors perform with different types of applications.

That's because VMware's end-user license agreement prohibits customers publishing their own ESX Server benchmarks. I'm sure VMware would say that's because it can't vouch for their accuracy. It's also possible that VMware wouldn't be able to deny their accuracy. Take your pick. (Another company that incorporates "no benchmarking" in its contracts is Oracle.)

What we do know is that the SPECvirt_sc2010 benchmark produced by the non-profit Standard Performance Evaluation Corp. at one point recently showed open source KVM winning 19 of 27 benchmarks. What might a different benchmark show, maybe the TPC-VMSstandard sponsored by the Transaction Processing Council for database applications? Hopefully that will soon yield publishable results for performance of virtualized databases.

A benchmark published by Virtualization Review in 2009 showed Citrix XenServer, a version of open source Xen, to be "the Porsche of hypervisors," sticking to a fairly fundamental test. Microsoft's Hyper-V was the runner up. VMware dissed the results in a blog on its website, producing this irate and funny responseby then Citrix CTO Simon Crosby.

We need more performance-oriented information. We need to know whether the market leader is also a performance leader or lagger under different workload settings. We need to know whether Hyper-V and XenServer shine in certain settings. And we need to know whether KVM's position inside the Linux kernel, using the kernel's scheduler and memory manager, is actually more efficient or just window dressing.

This is number one on the list for 2013. VMware is not in favor of testers other than itself issuing benchmarks. Don't be surprised to find it on the list again when 2014 rolls around.

Yes, Charlie, I do admit to the likely possibility you pose with the caveat that IT be honest with itself with regards to that portion of your application layer that IS your core competence -- perhaps only somewhere between 15-25% of all your apps. So working with an MSP that hosts the layers of your infrastructure stack below the application layer might be a better use of finite resources than on-prem, no matter what you do to it. The holy grail is of course to future proof and right-size your computing environment, regardless of where it resides and who owns or maintains what.

I'm a business strategist, first and foremost, with an appetite for technology, but I see cloud operators having an upper hand in perfecting infrastructures that been largely commoditized with VMWare as a key component in many cases...what I'm suggesting is to take a hard, long look at what you have and how you spend your money...ask yourself if you really are world-class at it, and if not, find out someone who is.

Karl, Would you admit the possibility that an on-premises, highly-virtualized environment may one day work with a public cloud? It seems to me many enterprise IT orgs see that as a way to get beyond "just maintaining the status quo," with more and more on-premises operational responsibility taken over by data center software. Then IT would be more available to address the varied devices of end users or implement rapid changes to business systems -- that is, if all goes according to plan. Charlie Babcock, InformationWeek

"It's acquired end-user application vendors, such as SocialCast and SlideRocket, and it's built out a developer-attracting platform in Cloud Foundry, where developers may build their own applications."

Care to correct your grammar, ed?

That aside, a fascinating article that supports my view of VMWare as a vendor of very sophisticated technology, but still a tactical band-aid to a broader opportunity to discuss the virtues of owning vs. 'renting' one's computing infrastructure, i.e. the various flavors of cloud, when chances are IT as a whole probably isn't one of your core competencies, just something you inherited or grew into because the hosted and SaaS options weren't there.

A CXO may well realize that, and look for options beyond tweaking something complex that they own but never fully quite understood to accommodate workload and user growth that now must include BYOD...is spending 3-7% of your top line revenue on IT then the best use of finite capex/opex if the bulk of it just maintains status quo?

It will be interesting to see if VMware is able to move their software-defined data center concept forward with the Nicira acquisition. Our September 2012 Virtualization Management survey found that 61% of respondents buy into the concept of virtualization technology in a services-oriented IT model, where compute, storage, network and security are aggregated and automatically delivered as services, based on policies. However, of that, only 20% think their virtualization vendor can get them there, 19% think it will take more than one vendor and 22% feel it's too complex to undertake now. It looks like VMware has its work cut out for them.

Our latest survey shows growing demand, fixed budgets, and good reason why resellers and vendors must fight to remain relevant. One thing's for sure: The data center is poised for a wild ride, and no one wants to be left behind.